opinion – Page 74 – Pat’s Answers Blog

We The People

The Preamble does not have any substantive legal meaning.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Preamble01

The Preamble was placed in the Constitution more or less as an afterthought. It was not proposed or discussed on the floor of the Constitutional Convention.

Gouverneur Morris, a delegate from Pennsylvania who as a member of the Committee of Style actually drafted the near-final text of the Constitution, composed it at the last moment.

The Preamble does not have any substantive legal meaning.

Preambles are merely declaratory and are not to be read as granting or limiting power—a view sustained by the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). It does, however, specifies the purposes for which the Constitution exists.

As Justice Joseph Story put it in his celebrated Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, “its true office is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution.”

The very opening words of the Constitution mark a radical departure: “We the People of the United States.” That language was at striking variance with the norm. In earlier documents, including the 1778 treaty of alliance with France, the Articles of Confederation, and the 1783 Treaty of Paris recognizing American independence, the word “People” was not used.

The Preamble’s first-mentioned purpose of the Constitution, “to form a more perfect Union,” was likewise subjected to misreading by Anti-Federalists. “More perfect” may strike modern readers as an ambiguous depiction, for “perfect” is now regarded as an absolute term. At the time of the Framing, however, it had no such connotation. For example, Sir William Blackstone, in his widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England, could assert that the constitution of England was perfect but steadily improving. Thus a more perfect union was simply a better and stronger one than had preexisted the Constitution.

In the second stated objective, to “establish Justice,” the key word is “establish,” clearly implying that justice, unlike union, was previously nonexistent. On the face of it, that implication seems hyperbolic, for the American states and local governments had functioning court systems with independent judges, and trial by jury was the norm.

But Gouverneur Morris chose the word carefully and meant what he wrote; he and many other Framers thought that the states had run amok and had trampled individual liberties in a variety of ways. The solution was twofold: the establishment of an independent Supreme Court and the provision for a federal judiciary superior to those of the states; and outright prohibition of egregious state practices. (How far our current government has come from the original intent of the preamble and, indeed, as we will see, the intent of the Constitution in the whole!)

The third avowed purpose, to “insure domestic Tranquility,” was in a general sense prompted by the long-standing habit of Americans to take up arms against unpopular government measures and was more immediately a response to Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts (1786–1787) and lesser uprisings in New Hampshire and Delaware.

The fourth purpose, to “provide for the common defense,” is obvious—after all, it was the reason the United States came into being. Congress expected that other wars would occur and were determined to be prepared to fight them. The Framers did, however, take fears of standing armies into account, hence their commitment to civilian control of things military.

The fifth purpose, to “promote the general Welfare,” had a generally understood meaning at the time of the Constitution. The concept will be developed fully in the discussion of the Spending Clause of Article I, Section 8. The salient point is that its implications are negative, not positive—a limitation on power, not a grant of power. By definition “general” means applicable to the whole rather than to particular parts or special interests.

The sixth purpose of the Constitution is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” In broad terms the securing of liberty is a function of the whole Constitution, for the Constitution makes possible the establishment of a government of laws, and liberty without law is meaningless.

Some historians have argued that the philosophy or ideology of the Constitution was at variance with that of the Declaration of Independence; indeed, several have described the adoption of the Constitution as a counter-Revolution.

But consider this. The Declaration refers to God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Preamble introduces a document whose stated purpose is to secure the rights of life and liberty.

And what of happiness? Once again the word “Welfare” is crucial: in the eighteenth century the definition of welfare included well-being, but it also and equally encompassed happiness.

The Preamble as a whole, then, declares that the Constitution is designed to secure precisely the rights proclaimed in the Declaration.

Preamble02

NEXT: Article I: Legislative

This page and its links contain opinion. As with all opinion, it should not be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself. Fair Use is relied upon for all content. For educational purposes only. No claims are made to the properties of third parties.

A Radical Idea

It has been said that knowledge is power, and, since the understanding of our Constitution has fallen from common knowledge the following series of blog posts will attempt to remedy that deficit.

“Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”
–George Santyana

The following proposal by an elected school board in Colorado prompted walk outs and protests by both teachers and middle-school students.

student protest against conservatives

Jefferson County, in the suburbs of Denver, is one of Colorado’s most populous counties, and is the largest school district in the state, with 84,000 students. Following the election of the new school board in Jefferson County the new majority appointed a new superintendent, Dan McMinimee,and also allocated funds to bail out two ailing charter schools. They took a hard line stance on teacher evaluations, choosing to count the results from the test of a new evaluation regime. There was also a proposal written by one of the conservative majority on the school board which calls for a review of the Advanced Placement history curriculum using the following set of criteria:

“Materials should promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law.”

Jonna Levine, the co-founder of Support Jeffco Kids, a pressure group set up this year, told the Guardian she found the language in the proposal “scary to say the least”. She thinks there is a conservative agenda at play in the school board. “You can’t help but assume that.”

“I think you could call it extreme. Extreme conservatism,” she added. She thinks something sinister is at play.

Something sinister? Citizenship, patriotism, free enterprise, respect for authority and individual rights is scary? Discouraging or not condoning civil disorder, social strife or disregard for the law is extreme?

Perhaps, part of the problem is that while there is much media discourse about “rights” there is little, if any understanding of the underlying basis including United States history and the legal foundation of our republic, the US Constitution. It’s becoming the norm to erase the parts of history that we find uncomfortable.

It has been said that knowledge is power, and, since the understanding of our Constitution has fallen from common knowledge the following series of blog posts will attempt to remedy that deficit.

The next post in the US Constitution series will deal with the content, but also the “why and wherefore” of the Preamble to the US Constitution.

Preamble01

Casus Belli

The pretexts for most wars, when examined, are usually, at best, flimsy. If that is so why would otherwise “sane” leaders go to armed conflict, (it is no longer politically correct to call it war.)?

CasusBelli

He messed with the H.R.E. – Casus Belli.
Shattered Stability – Casus Belli.
Prussia, Denmark, France – This is a call to arms!
England stood no chance – This is a call to arms!
But we couldn’t be happier, now that he attacked,
We have Casus Belli!^note

— “Casus Belli”, Europa Universalis IV: The Musical

The leaders of two countries want to go to war. Not for a silly reason, but due to anything from good old fashioned jingoism, greed, political/economic/religious differences, or a simple historical grudge. However, they can’t just out and out declare war, that would be uncivilized! And more importantly, it would make them look bad to the international community, which isn’t good politics.

So instead they will wait for or manufacture a Pretext for War out of whatever should come their way.

One interesting and ironic variant is when hardline elements from both sides will collaborate to stage a high profile assassination or other incident to kickstart a war, proving just how well they work together to achieve their goals despite hating each other’s guts. This one is especially common when one or both nations have a Reasonable Authority Figure as a head of state, since it can force their hand to war, or if they’re the assassination target, get them out of the picture and make them an unwitting martyr.

False Flag Operation is one of the classical moves too, and almost a Twentieth Century theme song.

Since wars of aggression have technically been banned, you’ll find that “False Flags” are a lot more common today than they were previously, since both sides are at pains to show that the other side started it.

As a result, the history of many a 20th-century war reads like a really, really Idiotic “Fawlty Towers” Plot.

“Civilized” countries have more or less always deemed it improper to declare war on your neighbors “because we want your stuff” or “because we feel like it; even an aggressive war would have to have some kind of triggering incursion, insult, or violation behind it.

How about “We must go to war to remove a tyrant who is using weapons against his own people”? Or, perhaps; “We must punish the terrorists who are threatening us with nuclear destruction”, (even though the country in question has the capability of the little nation in the movie “The Mouse that Roared)?

The above statement is asking the wrong question. A more appropriate question would be; “Who would somehow profit from this war? Arms manufacturers are often mentioned but considering the interconnectedness of government contracts and the beneficiaries of them, it comes down to more than manufacturers of those “evil” black rifles.

The corporations, (and the elite owners), that incite these wars are not interested in what happens to people, or the economy of particular countries, (since most are international in scope and ownership). It is not exclusively about increasing wealth, although wealth increase is a salubrious by-product of war.

In the end, it is about power. Who has it? Who wields it? Who are the controllers and who are the controlled?

Scripture says:

“And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.”

–Matthew 24:6

While this may be an accurate statement, it is probably more useful to look at who is beating the war drums and ask the question, (in Latin): Ubi est mia? (Where’s mine?).

The Agenda — Part Ten

There has been a long-term agenda to change these United States from the conception birthed by our Founding Fathers to something where the power elite control the “Great Unwashed” through the cooperation and demands of the rank and file sheep of the flock. Some parts of the agenda span only a few years while others take over a century to unfold. You might call it a “ten-point program”, a “new world order” or “hope and change”. Over the next two weeks the plan will be presented in no particular order.

The Plan01

The Agenda — Part Ten: Gather and centralize power in the Federal government leading with the non-elected agencies and bureaus of the Executive Branch.

police state

The federal government has exceeded its constitutional bounds. Congress functions far beyond its “few and defined” powers, to encroach on those reserved to the states and the people. Examples include education, health care and various criminal laws.

Even more intrusive, however, are the more than 400 federal agencies that issue thousands of regulations controlling every aspect of our lives, from our air and water to our farms and factories.

The executive branch chooses which laws to enforce and issues its own laws through executive orders and administrative rules.

The federal courts now routinely decide matters of public policy historically reserved to the states, including life, marriage and morality.

Why does any of this matter? As long as we have food on the table and a car in the garage, why does it matter if we are governed from our state Capitol or Washington — by legislators or federal administrators? Unchecked federal power is not only oppressive, but a distant central government is less efficient, less responsive and more expensive.

The answer in one word — liberty — for ourselves and our posterity.

“Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself. Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power. … Federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake.”
— Justice Anthony Kennedy

In short, the unchecked growth of federal power — without a counterbalancing state power — restricts individual liberty and threatens tyranny.

Here are just a few examples where the Federal government, (and our elected officials who are supposed to serve us) has ignored rather than honor the Constitutional liberties guaranteed to us as Americans.

1) dictate school curriculum, testing, lunch menus and transgender use of bathrooms and locker rooms;

2) prohibit mining and burning of coal;

3) regulate ditches and canals as “waters of the U.S.”;

4) revoke accreditation of colleges whose standards are not “politically correct”;

5) force private religious employers to provide contraceptive services;

6) dictate overtime pay in private employment;

7) revoke tax-exemptions for nonconforming religious beliefs;

8) protect wildlife that damages property or threatens domestic livestock;

9) force one-size-fits-all health care plans;

10) limit use of public lands; and so forth.

Despite what some may think, the Constitution is no magical incantation against government wrongdoing.

It’s only as effective as those who abide by it. However, without courts willing to uphold the Constitution’s provisions when government officials disregard it and a citizenry knowledgeable enough to be outraged when those provisions are undermined, it provides little to no protection against SWAT team raids, domestic surveillance, police shootings of unarmed citizens, indefinite detentions, and the like.

Unfortunately, the courts and the police have meshed in their thinking to such an extent that anything goes when it’s done in the name of national security, crime fighting and terrorism.

America no longer operates under a system of justice characterized by due process, an assumption of innocence, probable cause and clear prohibitions on government overreach and police abuse. Instead, our courts of justice have been transformed into courts of order, advocating for the government’s interests, rather than championing the rights of the citizen, as enshrined in the Constitution.

The rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, once the map by which we navigated sometimes hostile terrain, has been unceremoniously booted out of the runaway car that is our government, driven over and left for road kill on the side of the road. All that can be seen in the rear view mirror are the tire marks on its ragged frame.

What we are dealing with is a run-away government hyped up on its own power, whose policies are dictated more by paranoia than need. Making matters worse, “we the people” have become so gullible, so easily distracted, and so out-of-touch that we are ignoring the warning signs all around.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the NDAA indefinite detention case—which challenged whether the government can lawfully lock up American citizens who might be deemed extremists or terrorists (the government likes to use these words interchangeably) for criticizing the government—is one such warning sign that we would do well to heed.

your papers please

The building blocks are already in place for such an eventuality: the surveillance networks, the militarized police, the courts sanctioning the government’s methods, no matter how unlawful, and the detention facilities, whether private prisons or FEMA internment camps, to lock up the troublemakers.

Americans haven’t been overly concerned about the rights of others, whether non-citizens or suspected terrorists, and now we’re the ones in the unenviable position of being targeted for indefinite detention by our own government.

It will only be a matter of time before they learn the hard way that in a police state, it doesn’t matter who you are or how righteous you claim to be—eventually, you will be lumped in with everyone else and everything you do will be “wrong” and suspect.

“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.”
— Ayn Rand

avenge me

The Agenda — Part Nine

Having police in military camouflage, carrying heavy military weapons and patrolling in armored or other military vehicles gives the appearance of an armed police confrontation. That public image belies the traditional image of police as servants of the community.

The Plan01

The Agenda — Part Nine: Synchronize and fully integrate local law enforcement with state Federal and private contract military forces. Prepare collection/relocation/internment contingencies, systems & personnel.

SWAT 01

There is a long-standing tradition in the United States of separating police and military powers. This practice stems in part from Reconstruction (1865-77), the bitter post-Civil War experience of martial law when victorious Northern troops occupied the South.

After Reconstruction, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. While the roots of this federal law are controversial, the law is generally recognized as limiting the power of the U.S. military to interfere with civilian law enforcement.

The use of military forces under Posse Comitatus remained relatively static until the events of September 11, 2001 after which U.S. military surplus equipment was given to civilian law enforcement agencies under the Department of Defense (DoD) 1033 Program.

Some dispersals of equipment seem to reflect poor decision making. For example:

The Winthrop Harbor, Illinois, Police Department, policing a village of approximately 6,700 residents, has received 10 helicopters, a mine-resistant armored vehicle and two Humvees, as well as other equipment.

The Oxford, Alabama, Police Department, policing 22,000 residents, has received nine Humvees, two armored vehicles, a general purpose truck and other equipment.

The primary argument in favor of police militarization is that law enforcement agencies face increasingly sophisticated threats from criminal gangs and terrorists.

Arguments against police militarization center on the marginalization of the Posse Comitatus Act and the appearance of police as members of the military. Unlike military forces that exist to defeat the enemies of the United States in combat, the role of the police in America is to protect and serve their communities.

Civilian police referring to their fellow citizens as “civilians” is an example of how police militarization has crept into our society. For police officers to refer to their fellow community members as civilians promotes a “we – they” type of relationship in which the police are separate from the community.

Look at it for a moment from the cops’ point of view.

When someone calls 911 for police service, there is a tacit admission by the caller that the situation at hand has deteriorated beyond his or her control, and police are needed in order to bring the situation back under control. There is the unstated assumption that the officer has going into each situation — not that a social equilibrium needs to be maintained, but that a situation needs to be quickly and efficiently brought back under control.

Further than this, when he gets to the scene of many to most of these 911 calls, he encounters people who seek to frustrate his endeavors. He talks to witnesses who lie in circles about not seeing anything. He talks to suspects who lie about where they’d just been or what they were just doing. He talks to drunk people who can’t coordinate themselves and won’t remember what was said in ten minutes’ time. He talks to addicts who try to conceal the fact that they’re high even though involuntary tics have consumed their body. He talks to grade school kids and teenagers who have been conditioned to mistrust or despise police. He talks to people who lie about their identity because they have warrants or because they just want to frustrate him. He talks to people who act nervous and take too long to answer simple questions, raising his suspicions. He talks to people who have drugs, guns, knives, and any manner of other contraband hidden in their residence, in their vehicle, or on their person.

Now consider that the officer is doing this many times per shift — 10, 20, maybe more — encounters every day. He will quickly learn that, in order to get anything accomplished with these liars and obstructionists, he is going to have to employ tactics that in any other field would be unacceptable. He is going to have to be blunt, brusque and curt. He’s going to have to call bluffs and smokescreens and BS. He’s going to have to interrupt rambling, circular explanations. He’s going to have to look people in the eye and say, “We both know that you’re lying to me right now.”

Combine a siege police mentality with the transformation of police from “Peace officers” to “Law Enforcement” officers add military weapons and tactics into the mix and you have a volatile and explosive situation. Enter “Special Weapons and Tactics, S.W.A.T.

Initially S.W.A.T. was an elite force reserved for uniquely dangerous incidents, such as active shooters, hostage situations, or large-scale disturbances.

While SWAT isn’t the only indicator that the militarization of American policing is increasing, it is the most recognizable. The proliferation of SWAT teams across the country and their paramilitary tactics have spread a violent form of policing designed for the extraordinary but in these years made ordinary.

As the number of SWAT teams has grown nationwide, so have the raids. Every year now, there are approximately 50,000 SWAT raids in the United States. In other words, roughly 137 times a day a SWAT team assaults a home and plunges its inhabitants and the surrounding community into terror.

Nearly 80 percent of all SWAT raids reviewed between 2011 and 2012 were deployed to execute a search warrant.

Pause here and consider that these violent home invasions are routinely used against people who are only suspected of a crime. Up-armored paramilitary teams now regularly bash down doors in search of evidence of a possible crime. In other words, police departments increasingly choose a tactic that often results in injury and property damage as its first option, not the one of last resort. In more than 60 percent of the raids investigated, SWAT members rammed down doors in search of possible drugs, not to save a hostage, respond to a barricade situation, or neutralize an active shooter.

The military mentality and equipment associated with SWAT operations are no longer confined to those elite units. Increasingly, they’re permeating all forms of policing. Recruit training favors a stress-based regimen that’s modeled on military boot camp rather than on the more relaxed academic police departments previously employed. The result is young officers who believe policing is about kicking ass rather than working with the community to make neighborhoods safer.

This authoritarian streak runs counter to the core philosophy used to dominate American thinking: community policing, and its emphasis is on a mission of “keeping the peace” by creating and maintaining partnerships of trust with and in the communities served.

Police across America are being trained in a way that emphasizes force and aggression.

The more militaristic look of the BDUs, (Battle Dress Uniforms),much like what is seen in news stories of our military in war zones, gives rise to the notion of our police being an occupying force in some neighborhoods, instead of trusted community protectors.

Why is this dangerous to our Constitutional freedoms?

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) may be an obscure agency within the Department of Defense, but through the 1033 program, which it oversees, it’s one of the core enablers of American policing’s excessive militarization. Beginning in 1990, Congress authorized the Pentagon to transfer its surplus property free of charge to federal, state, and local police departments to wage the war on drugs. In 1997, Congress expanded the purpose of the program to include counterterrorism in section 1033 of the defense authorization bill. In one single page of a 450-page law, Congress helped sow the seeds of today’s warrior cops.

Astoundingly, one-third of all war materiel parceled out to state, local, and tribal police agencies is brand new. This raises further disconcerting questions: Is the Pentagon simply wasteful when it purchases military weapons and equipment with taxpayer dollars? Or could this be another downstream, subsidized market for defense contractors?

Whatever the answer, the Pentagon is actively distributing weaponry and equipment made for U.S. counterinsurgency campaigns abroad to police who patrol American streets and this is considered sound policy in Washington. The message seems striking enough: what is necessary for Kabul is also be necessary for DeKalb County.

In other words, the 21st-century war on terror has melded thoroughly with the 20th-century war on drugs, and the result couldn’t be anymore disturbing: police forces that increasingly look and act like occupying armies.

Evidence is mounting that America’s militarized police are a threat to public safety.

In a country where the cops increasingly look upon themselves as soldiers doing battle day in, day out, there’s no need for public accountability or even an apology when things go grievously wrong.

If community policing rests on mutual trust between the police and the people, militarized policing operates on the assumption of “officer safety” at all costs and contempt for anyone who sees things differently. The result is an “us versus them” mentality… and that is a dangerous mindset both for police officers and for those they “serve and protect”.

Robocop 02

The Agenda — Part Six

“You might be a Domestic Terrorist If” you believe in civil liberties, or if you actually believe in your Constitutional rights.

The Plan01

The Plan — Part Six: Associate Judeo-Christian ethics and Constitutional advocacy with a backward and extremist and intolerant world view. Portray those who advocate gun rights and the second amendment as violent and prone to be anti-social and terrorists.

“You might be a Domestic Terrorist If” you believe in civil liberties, or if you actually believe in your Constitutional rights. Sadly, this is not a joke. You might also be a terrorist if you have ever expressed concerns of Big Brother. Are you a Christian who has ever discussed the anti-Christ, the apocalypse, or even mentioned the book of Revelation? Guess what, according to the DHS during the previous administration then you too qualify as a potential domestic terrorist.

During the George W. Bush administration and intensified by the administration of Barack Hussein Obama policing has experienced a shift in focus from local community to a “federally dominated model of complete social control” coming out of, not surprisingly, Homeland Security. More specifically, the long-reaching DHS arms of TSA and FEMA have been pushed heavily to local law enforcement.

The most disturbing thing is the scope of domestic intelligence activities taking place today. Domestic spying is now being done by a host of federal agencies (FBI, DOD, DHS, DNI) as well as state and local law enforcement and even private companies.

Too often this spying targets political activity and religious practices. There are documented intelligence activities targeting or obstructing First Amendment-protected activity in at least 33 states and Washington DC.

The globalist elites, through their propaganda arm, the media, believe that We the People of the USA are a wildly dangerous group.

In fact, they think terrorists are lurking everywhere in America, waiting to attack. It is my firmly held belief that this ongoing preemptive attack on patriots and gun rights is because we love America, that we talk about and write about the worrisome facts of our great country becoming the land of surveillance and distrust, the place where neighbors are encouraged to report neighbors, and where local law enforcement is being told to be on the lookout for terrorists lurking all over their communities.

There is a concerted effort to remove the means of self defense from the general populace while the elites live in their gated communities protected by heavily armed security while children in the inner city are falling to drug addiction and gang violence.

In a 1961 episode of The Twilight Zone titled “The Obsolete Man,” a librarian in a police state, played by the late Burgess Meredith, is executed for the crime of believing in God. In his 1967 memoir, Tortured for Christ, Richard Wurmbrand describes how Soviet guards would tell prisoners, “I thank God in whom I don’t believe. Now I may indulge the evil in my heart” (p. 34).

Faced with such dismal levels of public approval, atheists felt the need to show believers that they were good people and not amoral communists. Beginning in the 1970s, the philosopher Paul Kurtz promoted what he called “secular humanism,” which focused on promoting human well-being without religion rather than converting people to atheism.

Our society has become imbued with moral relativism. Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It’s a version of morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”

When the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic church responding to a question regarding homosexuals responds; “The problem is a person that has a condition, that has good will and who seeks God, who are we to judge?”
we can be very sure that there has been a sea-change in the religious, ethical and moral climate of our society.

An important principle in human law is that ignorance of human laws does not present any defense in Court. The Latin terms for this concept is Ignorantia juris non excusat – ignorance of the law does not excuse, or ignorance of the law excuses no one. Another expression nemo censetur ignorare legem means nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law. The expression ignorantia iuris nocet means that not knowing the law is in fact harmful.

But just as we have all broken an earthly law at one time or another, so too we have all broken God’s laws. In fact, the Bible reveals that all of humanity stands accused before God of rebellion against Him and His laws, and that all have been declared guilty by Him. The penalty for transgression of His laws is death.

To know what is right and yet continue to follow the old 1960’s dictum of “if it feels good, go it!” shows we are no longer deceived but simply willful. If we choose to follow the “easier, softer way promised by the elites we have no excuse.

Dante's_Inferno__Treachery

The Agenda – Part Four

The PATRIOT Act only benefits Wall Street, the banks, large corporations and the U.S. Government, not mainstream America.

The Plan01

The Plan – Part Four: Bring National Security to the forefront of public consciousness.

On September 11, 2001 America was fundamentally changed with the attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Our way of life, our fundamental relationship with our government and, in many ways, our way of looking at the freedoms and liberties we took for granted fell like the facades of the Twin Towers.

We were angry and confused and frightened. Many of our fellow citizens demanded that the government “DO SOMETHING”… and, most unfortunately, it did. FEMA morphed from a civilian defense agency to the “Reich-like” stepchild called the Department of Homeland Security. The politicians on both sides of the aisle, realizing they couldn’t look smart so they should at least look busy followed the old Groucho Marx quote that said:“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
Their misdiagnosis gave birth to the oxymoronic “Patriot Act” and somewhat later to the “FISA court”.

USA PATRIOT Act is the bill they passed allegedly strengthened civil liberties. In reality, it fails to make any meaningful improvements to the provisions that violate citizen’s basic rights.

The PATRIOT Act only benefits Wall Street, the banks, large corporations and the U.S. Government, not mainstream America. The Patriot Act broadly expands law enforcement’s surveillance and investigative powers and represents one of the most significant threats to civil liberties and privacy in U.S. history.

The original Patriot Act was passed into law on October 24, 2001 by the Congress of the United States, just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with few Congressman even reading it and virtually no debate. The Act threatens your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and even worse the power to break your door down at your home at any time of the day or night and conduct unconstitutional searches and seizures or, if your lucky and are not home, they can search your home or business in secret without telling you for weeks, months, if ever.

The law dramatically expands the ability of states and the Federal Government to conduct surveillance of American citizens. The Government can monitor an individual’s web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals “proximate” to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.

PATRIOT is not limited to terrorism. The Government can add samples to DNA databases for individuals convicted of “any crime of violence.” Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) and all of this and more requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on and monitoring any computer user’s searches, e-mails and in fact record every stroke on any computer.

As we have seen in part due to the release of information provided by the House Committee on Intelligence, foreign and domestic intelligence agencies can more easily spy on Americans.

Powers under the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was just recently reauthorized, have been broadened to allow for increased surveillance opportunities. FISA standards are lower than the constitutional standard applied by the courts in regular investigations. PATRIOT partially repeals legislation enacted in the 1970s that prohibited pervasive surveillance of American.

If this seems as though it should be illegal, guess what? It is!

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Seems pretty clear, But the argument has been repeatedly made that steps, sometimes Draconian steps must be taken to insure the safety of the public.

The Washington Post, (the Old Gray Lady of Watergate fame), puts it this way: it is perfectly fine to “give up liberty” for security: Discomfort with the government’s capacity, technical or legal, to collect and retain massive amounts of personal information is understandable. But the 2008 FISA amendments sought a compromise between two essential goals: preserving American liberty and robustly defending Americans’ lives and property. We favored the law and believe that it should be extended.

That’s ridiculous. Almost no one seems to understand what’s actually in the FISA Amendments Act, in part because there’s a secret interpretation of it that only the government knows.

This means that many, many people, including those in Congress, are clearly misrepresenting what’s in the law. The fact that the NSA refuses to say how often it has used this secret interpretation to spy on Americans should be a pretty big warning sign — especially as politicians who are either clueless or ignorant claim that it can’t be used to spy on Americans.

The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata), was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.

Today, with the “Patriot Act” and the “FISA courts” it seems as though the system has been turned on its’ head to protect the socially and politically prominent people while oppressing Jane and Joe Sixpack.

All while the media continues the fairy tale that we much surrender our liberties for security.

One of the architects of our republic, Benjamin Franklin is known for, among other things, the following quote; “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Many would look to the government to shepherd us to safety while law enforcement, acting like the sheepdogs protect us from the wolves. We would do well to remember that the sheepdog works for the shepherd, not the sheep and the shepherd is only keeping the sheep until they can either be sheared or slaughtered.

sheep to the slaughter

A Prayer For The Good Servants

Deliver me, O Lord, from evil men;
preserve me from violent men,
who plan evil things in their heart
and stir up wars continually.

Prayer

There are many who would undo the good that has come back to our land over the past year. We need to pray for those who have served us well.

Psalm 140 1:5
Deliver me, O Lord, from evil men;
preserve me from violent men,
who plan evil things in their heart
and stir up wars continually.
They make their tongue sharp as a serpent’s,
and under their lips is the venom of asps.
Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked;
preserve me from violent men,
who have planned to trip up my feet.
The arrogant have hidden a trap for me,
and with cords they have spread a net;
beside the way they have set snares for me.

Psalm140

The Agenda – Part Three

The United States sends election monitors around the world to help discourage fraudulent balloting. But, here at home, it has largely turned a blind eye to the possibility that fraudulent voting by noncitizens could influence the outcome of an election. Our voter registration system is susceptible to abuse by noncitizens.

The Plan01

The Plan – Part 3: Expand the voter base and agenda support by granting voting rights to prison inmates, illegal aliens and select US Territories like Puerto Rico. Shape the narrative as a civil rights issue. Label those who protest as RACIST or ISOLATIONIST or INTOLERANT. Paint those who do not fall in line with the “new” agenda as “Rednecks” or “Nazis” or “Reactionaries”, or “Segregationists”.

California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 60 in 2013, making California the 10th state to allow driver licenses for people in the country illegally. The STATED goal was to increase public safety and reduce penalties for undocumented immigrants who drive. As of late 2017 the State of California has issued over 900,000 such licenses to illegals.

In 2015, Brown signed the New Motor Voter law. By April, it will automatically register DMV customers to vote when they renew or obtain a driver’s license or fill out change of address forms, unless the customer opts-out.

Jessica Gonzalez, spokeswoman with the California DMV, said; “…we have programming measures in place to prevent that from occurring.” State officials said safeguards are already in place to prevent state DMV workers from typing in any voter information for AB 60 license holders. The state allows unauthorized immigrants to obtain a driver’s license, but supposedly excludes that group from the automatic voter registration.

In addition, noncitizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts and when allocating state electors under the Electoral College. This means noncitizens play a role in determining how many congressional representatives a state has and exert an indirect influence on presidential elections. This means that areas with large numbers of illegal alien residents gain additional representatives in Congress.

On April 22, 2016 Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe issued a sweeping executive order that changed the lives of 200,000 ex-felons in Virginia, instantly restoring their right to vote. This order leaves only Kentucky, Florida and Iowa with blanket lifetime disenfranchisement policies for ex-felons.

In recent years, the Supreme Court and Congress have affirmed a variety of constitutional rights for prisoners. They have rights of religious freedom under a 2000 federal law. Prisoners also retain some First Amendment free speech rights to hold and express political opinions. Most important, the Supreme Court decided that prisoners cannot have their citizenship stripped as a punishment for a crime. As Justice Earl Warren wrote in the 1958 case Trop v. Dulles: “Citizenship is not a right that expires upon misbehavior.”

Following that chain of logic to it’s conclusion, if “CITIZENSHIP” is not a right that expires on misbehavior, (commission of a crime), then logically there is an argument that “Non-Citizenship” should not be a bar to voting.

Looking at the way things seem to be progressing, it looks as though this part of the plan is well underway.

An old, (C) 1620 British March pretty well sums up this situation:

Listen to me and you shall hear, news hath not been this thousand year:
Since Herod, Caesar, and many more, you never heard the like before.
Holy-dayes are despis’d, new fashions are devis’d.
–The World Turned Upside-down

World turned upside down

The Agenda – Part Two

Like all “watchdogs”, the media are expected to bark, but when its many voices is owned by a small number of corporate masters, concerns about the validity of its’ barking arises.

Part Two: Consolidate all media assets behind core concepts stressing a new internationalism.

Like all “watchdogs”, the media are expected to bark, but when its many voices is owned by a small number of corporate masters, concerns about the validity of its’ barking arises.

Originally, the Internet was the champion of free thinkers, embraced as a liberating force from corporate owned media. But over a short time online news sites joined radio, television, newspapers and magazines as properties of the small handful of media conglomerates.

In raw numbers, 80 percent of the top 20 online news sites are owned by the 100 largest media companies. Time Warner owns two of the most visited sites: CNN.com and AOL News, while Gannett, which is the twelfth largest media company, owns USAToday.com along with many local online newspapers.

Fake news was not a term many people used two ago, but it is now it is seen as one of the greatest threats to truthful information. Governments and powerful individual elites have used information/propaganda as a weapon for millennia, to boost their support and quash dissidence.

Misinformation, spin, lies and deceit have of course been around forever. But what has been uncovered was a unique marriage between social media algorithms, advertising systems, political operatives prepared to make stuff up to cripple their opponents and freelancers looking to earn some easy, if nefarious cash.

It’s not only the under-educated and gullible that are victims of the targeted media propaganda. Highly-educated people are often duped by lies as well – and can often be more stubborn when presented with information that challenges their views. This is exactly what the purveyors of societal control are counting on.

“Google, Facebook and other media platforms have said that they are going to be hiring a lot of people to review content and enforce their terms of service and keep fake and illegal stuff off their platforms. Sounds good… until you ask the question who will review the reviewers?

Ill-informed legislators will overreach and do more harm that the problem they are trying to fix, with legislation. The “Ministry of Information” does have a certain ring to it.

Propaganda can have the full weight and power of the state behind it. But more commonly, it’s a public relations challenge rearing its ugly head during a political campaign, a corporate battle or even by a non-profit is trying to manipulate an issue.

It’s hard to fight fire with fire, especially when you can’t use the same evil manipulations and lies that the other side is employing. You might feel like David in a fight against Goliath because propaganda is a tool of those in the power elite both in and out of government.

The best tactic is to establish your own channels of communication, especially since the other side dominates or controls the mainstream media.

Social media, blogs, and e-mail can let you communicate directly to the people, and that’s vital in a fight against propaganda. Flood the Internet at every opportunity. Get your own message out there. You’ll get people talking if you can accomplish this in a witty or clever way that they’ll remember. And as anyone involved in marketing knows, word of mouth is good.

The Founding Fathers ultimately prevailed through pamphleteers like Thomas Paine and others who got the truth out.

“The TRUTH is rarely pure and seldom simple”

–Oscar Wilde

(2018)